↓ Skip to main content

Efficacy and safety of acupuncture for functional constipation: a randomised, sham-controlled pilot trial

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (52nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
68 Mendeley
Title
Efficacy and safety of acupuncture for functional constipation: a randomised, sham-controlled pilot trial
Published in
BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies, June 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12906-018-2243-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hye-Yoon Lee, Oh-Jin Kwon, Jung-Eun Kim, Mikyeong Kim, Ae-Ran Kim, Hyo-Ju Park, Jung-Hyo Cho, Joo-Hee Kim, Sun-Mi Choi

Abstract

The prevalence of functional constipation (FC) is 3-27%, and FC has been reported to cause discomfort in daily life and various complications. The treatment for FC depends on laxatives, and thus, effective and non-toxic alternative treatments are needed. We conducted a randomised, sham-controlled parallel-design, pilot trial. Participants with FC were randomly assigned to either the real acupuncture (RA) or sham acupuncture (SA) group. The RA consisted of eight fixed acupuncture points (bilateral ST25, ST27, BL52 and BL25) and four additional points targeted to the individual based on Traditional Korean medicine (TKM). SA consisted of shallow acupuncture insertion at 12 non-acupuncture points. Twelve sessions were provided over 4 weeks. The outcome measures were weekly defecation frequency (DF), spontaneous complete bowel movement (SCBM), Bristol stool scale (BSS) score and constipation assessment scale (CAS) score. The participants were followed for 4 weeks after the treatment. Thirty participants were enrolled (15:15). The mean DF were 5.86 ± 5.62, 5.43 ± 3.39 and 5.79 ± 3.64 in the RA group and 3.73 ± 1.62, 5.00 ± 1.77 and 5.40 ± 1.96 in the SA group at weeks 1, 5, and 9, respectively. The increases in weekly SCBMs were 2.50 ± 3.86 and 2.71 ± 4.01 with RA and 2.33 ± 2.74 and 1.93 ± 2.25 with SA at weeks 5 and 9, respectively (mean difference [MD] 0.78). The BSS scores were 0.57 ± 1.72 and 1.09 ± 1.30 with RA and 0.15 ± 1.06 and 0.14 ± 0.88 with SA at weeks 5 and 9, respectively (MD 0.95). The CAS score changes were - 3.21 ± 2.91 and - 3.50 ± 3.98 with RA and - 2.67 + ±2.82 and - 2.87 ± 2.95 with SA at weeks 5 and 9, respectively. Greater improvements were observed in subgroup analysis of participants with hard stool. The numbers of participants who developed adverse events (AEs) were equal in both groups (four in each group), and the AEs were not directly related to the intervention. This clinical trial shows feasibility with minor modifications to the primary outcome measure and comparator. Acupuncture showed clinically meaningful improvements in terms of SCBMs occurring more than 3 times per week and in these improvements being maintained for 4 weeks after treatment completion. As this is a pilot trial, future studies are warranted to confirm the efficacy and safety. KCT0000926 (Registered on 14 November 2013).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 68 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 68 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 18 26%
Student > Master 10 15%
Student > Postgraduate 4 6%
Researcher 4 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 4%
Other 6 9%
Unknown 23 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 16 24%
Medicine and Dentistry 16 24%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Engineering 2 3%
Other 3 4%
Unknown 27 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 March 2019.
All research outputs
#12,906,201
of 23,090,520 outputs
Outputs from BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies
#1,361
of 3,657 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#154,363
of 328,710 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies
#22
of 89 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,090,520 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,657 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 328,710 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 89 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.